Court strikes down Michigan's 24-hour waiting period for abortions
A sign at the Michigan Pride rally in Lansing on June 26, 2022. | Photo by Laina G. Stebbins
Michigan's mandatory 24-hour waiting period for receiving abortions has been struck down after a Michigan Court of Claims judge determined Tuesday that the rule was unconstitutional.
Michigan voters enshrined the right to an abortion and 'reproductive freedom for all' into the state constitution in the November 2022 election through a ballot measure. In February 2024, abortion rights groups filed a lawsuit challenging several of Michigan's provisions around abortion access, asserting that they work against Michiganders' new constitutional rights.
In addition to the mandatory 24-hour waiting period, Michigan Court of Claims Judge Sima Patel struck down requirements surrounding mandatory counseling that required abortion providers to provide an image of a fetus to patients receiving abortions. Another stricken rule had barred nurse practitioners, certified nurse midwives and physician assistants from performing abortions
However, Patel upheld a rule that requires abortion providers to screen for signs of coercion, saying the rule does not violate the constitutional right to reproductive health care.
Michigan voters OK abortion, voting rights and term limits proposals
'The interest to be protected in this case is the fundamental right to reproductive freedom. The Court has deemed the majority of the provisions in the challenged laws to unconstitutionally burden and infringe upon that right,' Patel wrote in her opinion Tuesday.
Striking down the 24-hour waiting period has been a top priority for abortion access advocates, as Planned Parenthood of Michigan reported in 2023, when lawmakers were considering a repeal, that the rule causes around 150 patients to cancel their appointments each month due to difficulty scheduling with work, transportation or other reasons.
Plaintiffs arguing for the repeal in the case argued that the waiting period does nothing to promote patient health or protect against coercion into getting an abortion. Instead, proponents for the repeal argued that the waiting period works to ensure it becomes more difficult, logistically and medically, to receive quality abortion care earlier in a pregnancy.
'…the Court finds that the mandatory 24-hour waiting period burdens and infringes upon patients' rights to reproductive freedom,' Patel wrote in her opinion Tuesday. 'The mandatory delay exacerbates the burdens that patients experience seeking abortion care, including by increasing costs, prolonging wait times, increasing the risk that a patient will have to disclose their decision to others, and potentially forcing the patient to forgo a medication abortion for a more invasive procedure.'
Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, a staunch supporter of abortion rights, has long supported eliminating the state's waiting period placed on abortions, saying in a statement Tuesday that the court's decision recognizes the struck down provisions as burdensome and obstructive to abortion care.
'This ruling affirms what Michiganders made clear when they voted to enshrine a fundamental right to reproductive freedom in our state constitution: that deeply personal medical decisions belong to individuals and their providers,' Nessel said. 'I will continue fighting to defend reproductive freedoms and protect bodily autonomy for Michigan residents.'
Meanwhile, Right to Life of Michigan President Amber Roseboom said in a statement that the court's decision endangers womens' ability to make informed and safe medical decisions for themselves.
'Abortion is the only medical procedure of its kind in which the patient now is expected to go in blind,' Roseboom said in a statement. 'There is no question that women are at greater risk when they enter an abortion clinic in Michigan today than they were even a few years ago.'
Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, who championed the effort to remove the barriers, said the ruling 'reaffirms that Michigan is a state where you can make your own decisions about your own body with a trusted health care provider, without political interference.'
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
15 hours ago
- Yahoo
"In sadness, I dissent": Sotomayor blasts conservative justices for upholding trans health care ban
The Supreme Court upheld a Tennessee law that bans gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors on Wednesday. The 6-3 decision in United States v. Skrmetti lets stand a Tennessee law that bans gender-affirming care for transgender minors. The law would still allow puberty blockers and other hormone care for cisgender minors, meaning someone assigned female at birth couldn't receive a prescription for testosterone, but someone assigned male at birth could. The three families and doctor who challenged the Tennessee law said that it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment by discriminating based on sex. Tennessee argued that the law is based on age and medical purpose, not sex. In the majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts left the issue to the states: 'We leave questions regarding its policy to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process.' The decision sets a precedent for the 25 states that have bans on pediatric gender-affirming care. Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented from the majority opinion, joined by Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan. 'By retreating from meaningful judicial review exactly where it matters most, the Court abandons transgender children and their families to political whims. In sadness, I dissent,' Sotomayor wrote. Tennessee argued that the ban protects children from 'experimental' medical treatment, despite major U.S. medical and mental health organizations supporting gender-affirming care, saying it's backed by science and even medically necessary care that improves transgender youth's health and well-being.'Gender-affirming care is medically necessary for treating gender dysphoria and is backed by decades of peer-reviewed research, clinical experience, and scientific consensus,' Dr. Susan J. Kressly, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, said in a statement. Tyler Hack, founder of the Christopher Street Project, said: 'There aren't words strong enough to describe how shameful, cruel, and morally corrupt this ruling is. Access to gender-affirming care is life-or-death.' 'The Supreme Court should know: this domino effect of suffering and more suffering is on their hands,' Hack said. The Trump administration is also eliminating the option for LGBTQ+ individuals who call the 988 Suicide Hotline to press 3 and connect with someone who specializes in LGBTQ+ mental health. Montana state Rep. Zooey Zephyr, the first transgender legislator elected in her state, addressed the ruling and 988 changes on Bluesky: 'These bastards want us all dead.'
Yahoo
15 hours ago
- Yahoo
Judge says it's too late to order recovery of Trump officials' Signal messages
A federal judge said Friday it's too late to order the recovery of already-deleted Signal messages from key members of President Trump's Cabinet, largely rejecting a request from an oversight group to get involved. But U.S. District Judge James Boasberg did order acting National Archivist and Secretary of State Marco Rubio to ask Attorney General Pam Bondi to take steps to preserve Signal chats across the government at risk of being deleted. 'At this juncture, the Court largely denies American Oversight's slew of requests and will instead grant only narrower relief,' the judge wrote. American Oversight, a group that regularly files records lawsuits against the federal government, sued five top Trump officials following revelations that they discussed a military strike in a group chat on the encrypted messaging app — and unintentionally included a journalist. They had asked the judge to order the officials to preserve all Signal communications and recover chats that had been deleted. However, Boasberg noted, American Oversight's own 'emphatically stated' representation to the court was that destroyed Signal messages cannot be recovered and to issue the directive would be fruitless. The challengers' 'hardline stance' that deleted Signal messages are gone for good overshadows their later efforts to suggest recovering the messages might be possible, especially if the nation's intelligence agencies were to try. 'Although Plaintiff tries to walk that stance back — claiming in its Reply that recovery is feasible '[r]egardless of Signal's statement of policy,' — that belated assertion wilts in the face of its repeated claims to the contrary in both its Amended Complaint and Motion,' Boasberg said. Though Boasberg ordered Rubio to ask Bondi to act on the messages 'not yet gone with the wind,' he also noted that the attorney general has the discretion to ignore that request. Jeffrey Goldberg, The Atlantic's editor in chief, revealed the Signal group chat after he was unintentionally added to it by now-former national security adviser Mike Waltz. The Trump officials used the encrypted chat to discuss a strike on the Houthis in Yemen. More than a dozen top officials, like Vice President Vance and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, were part of the chat. However, only five were sued: Hegseth, Rubio, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard. Chioma Chukwu, executive director of American Oversight, said in a statement that the ruling affirms that Trump administration officials are not above the law and the records of their official actions belong to the American people. 'It should never have required court intervention to compel the acting Archivist and other agency heads to perform their basic legal duties, let alone to refer the matter to the Attorney General for enforcement,' she said. 'But because they failed to act, the court has now stepped in to order what the law already requires.' Chukwu added that the group expects 'immediate compliance.' 'And if they drag their feet or fail to act, we are fully prepared to pursue further legal action to ensure government records, which belong to the public, are preserved and protected.' Updated at 7:08 p.m. EDT Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
a day ago
- The Hill
Judge says it's too late to order recovery of Trump officials' Signal messages
A federal judge on Friday said it's too late to order the recovery of already-deleted Signal messages from key members of President Trump's Cabinet, largely rejecting a request from an oversight group to get involved. But U.S. District Judge James Boasberg did order acting National Archivist and Secretary of State Marco Rubio to ask Attorney General Pam Bondi to take steps to preserve Signal chats across the government at risk of being deleted. 'At this juncture, the Court largely denies American Oversight's slew of requests and will instead grant only narrower relief,' the judge wrote. American Oversight, a group that regularly files records lawsuits against the federal government, sued five top Trump officials following revelations that they discussed a military strike in a group chat on the encrypted messaging app — and unintentionally included a journalist. They had asked the judge to order the officials to preserve all Signal communications and recover chats that had been deleted. However, Boasberg noted, American Oversight's own 'emphatically stated' representation to the court was that destroyed Signal messages cannot be recovered and to issue the directive would be fruitless. The challengers' 'hardline stance' that deleted Signal messages are gone for good overshadows their later efforts to suggest recovering the messages might be possible, especially if the nation's intelligence agencies were to try. 'Although Plaintiff tries to walk that stance back — claiming in its Reply that recovery is feasible '[r]egardless of Signal's statement of policy,' — that belated assertion wilts in the face of its repeated claims to the contrary in both its Amended Complaint and Motion,' Boasberg said. Though Boasberg ordered Rubio to ask Bondi to act on the messages 'not yet gone with the wind,' he also noted that the attorney general has the discretion to ignore that request. Jeffrey Goldberg, The Atlantic's editor-in-chief, revealed the Signal group chat after he was unintentionally added to it by now-former national security adviser Michael Waltz. The Trump officials used the encrypted chat to discuss a strike on the Houthis in Yemen. More than a dozen top officials, like Vice President Vance and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, were part of the chat. However, only five were sued: Hegseth, Rubio, CIA director John Ratcliffe, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard. The Hill requested comment from American Oversight.
